Hockey’s defamation win is dark news for democracy and free speech
In this cross-posting from The Conversation Michael Douglas of Curtin University argues Joe Hockey’s defamation victory over Fairfax sets a dangerous precedent for free speech by Australian media outlets.
We should all be careful before saying anything that will hurt our politicians’ feelings: they might sue us for defamation. On Tuesday, Treasurer Joe Hockey was awarded A$200,000 damages against Fairfax Media in relation to a series of publications that focused on his political fundraising activities.
That this case was brought at all is ridiculous. That Hockey won is absurd. His victory marks a dark day for freedom of speech in Australia.
The decision
Wonder if Michael Douglas believes the Andrew Bolt case was also “a dark day for freedom of speech”?
“Treasurer for sale” doesn’t even tell you WHICH treasurer it referred to. You’d need the context of the articles to know that. At which point you couldn’t take the poster in isolation.
So Douglas believes the meeja “…ought to be able to instigate the debate without fear of reprisals by litigious politicians”. News flash, Michael: they can, and do, BUT only if they don’t break the law! In Douglas’ world apparently everyone, including pollies, is fair game in the interests of “robust debate” and bugger the consequences. But, in the real world, there are consequences, as Fairfax discovered.
From someone that spent many years in the newspaper industry, Lefty Fairfax got off lightly. If it was Keating, they would also have enjoyed his right foot up their clacker! When will media outlets (of all political persuasions) just dispense the news? Not their attitude? Maybe the SMH should try: “Independent. Always. Sometimes.”
Mr Douglas makes sense of his opinions; however, like Derryn Hinch, who often, when not stating the obvious, made little sense in sometimes drawn out arguments, he needs to ground himself in the reality that these decisions are made by courts and legal practitioners, within a framework which is designed to protect each and every one of us.
Mr Hockey has, and I hope he and everyone will always have, the right to defend his/their name and/or actions against anyone who publicly challenges, including the press. I am almost tempted to add “especially the press.”
Nice clickbait headline Mumbrella. The SMH’s smear campaign hit its zenith with this misleading and defamatory headline. This showed appalling judgmement on the part of the responsible editor, Darren Goodsir. As the levels of political debate are debased further, let’s hope this sends a clear message that even if the facts of the story are correct, personal hurt can be conveyed through inference – in this case a mlicious headline and tweet. Freedom of speech has not been compromised – we lost that with the Bolt Case. Freedom of speech is just a distant memory.